TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court was not compelled to accept any application from the parties. Aggrieved by that order, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has filed this revision petition. 2. The only point to be decided in the case is whether a party could move an application after the final arguments in the case were heard and the case was reserved for judgment. 3. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, MANU/SC/0013/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 993, in para 19, the Supreme Court has observed as under (at Page 1004) In the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit : (1) where the hearing is adjourned or (2) where the hearing is completed. Where the hearing is completed the parties have no further righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1994 : 1994 (4) SCC 659, is that if the document is necessary for disposal of the suit, it should be accepted even at the stage of arguments. The Supreme Court case relied upon in the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable on facts as the documents in that case were sought to be produced at the stage of arguments and not after the case was closed for judgment. 6. Another decision of the Supreme Court in Altaf Khan v. Mohd. Amin Khan, was also cited. This also is not a case in which the documents were sought to be produced between the closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of judgment. The documents were sought to be produced at the belated stage in this case. This case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 7. A s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is pronounced. Supreme Court has clearly held that, there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment. If there is no stage in between two and it is only for the convenience of the Court that pronouncement of the judgment may be deferred, it is clear that no application could be moved after the arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment. Moreover, the distinction sought to be made on the basis of absence of the word 'stage' in Order 9, Rule 7, CPC is also not real. Since the Supreme Court has categorically decided that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment it cannot be said that there can be any stage in b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments or any other reason. The decision in Arjun Singh's case does not of course mean that the trial. Court is powerless after it closed the case for judgment and has to pronounce the judgment in all circumstances. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) clearly lays down that for the parties, there is no hiatus between closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of the judgment and therefore, the parties cannot move any application as there is no stage in between closure of the case for pronouncement of the judgment and actual pronouncement of the judgment. 11. A single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Celestina Rosario v. Mrs. Hariquinha F.D. Rosario (1999 (2) CCC 599 : (1997 AIHC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
